Are Our Perceptions "Outside" Our Brain ?

Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
Our "mental images" are "inside". We refer to both as "ours'; is that a 'slip of the tongue' or a "clue"?
What if 'authentic/empirical' perceptions are also inside our brain like mental images are? Intuitively that does not 'feel' right, so it would be a 'hard-sell'.
Why do we have mediators/arbitrators? Why are there disputes/arguments/disagreements? "We 'make' perceptions via 'believing thought images real".
If 'belief-perceptions' were external, in the public domain, they would be impersonal like air, gravity, rain, sunshine; indisputable facts.
"Belief-Perceptions" are personal,unique,idiosyncratic, more often than common shared ones. "Advice" comes from 'inside' people.
"Part" of us, automatically reacts to belief-perceptions "as if" they 'were' equivalent/duplicates of 'environmental perceptions'.
Rorschach projections do not only occur exclusively in clinics/labs. In daily living, we do not recognize doing it. "Recognition" is the 'key'.(antidote).

We can't see ourselves "covertly believing" a thought; but we experience the consequences nevertheless.
Does it 'feel right' to believe that emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress are 'caused' by 'covert believing' ?
We can "cyberneticaly" veto covert believed conditioning via feedback wihout using devices like polygraphs, bio-feedback, GSR.

Experiment with this, repeating; "Im in a low mood, covertly believing some thought-image is real."
(This is true, if experiencing such, but can you realize it?)
Modify as needed; "I'm experiencing anger,covertly believing some though-image is real."
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
.....Can We Reclaim "Believing" Back Into Voluntary Domain ?.....
If not, then we must interact with 'subliminal believing' the way physicists interact with invisible submicroscopic atomic level.
How/why was 'believing' conditioned/automated to function by habit? We relinquish control of 'believing' by habituating it.
'Conditioning' analogous to involuntary reflexes/instincts. There's pupil contraction, knee jerk, swallowing, vomiting, hiccups, sneezing, crying, laughing. Which crucial one not on this list? "Perceptual Reflex". "All creatures are involuntarily reactive to perceptions", (for survival/adaptaion, etc.)
There's another version of 'perceptual reflex' most people do not yet recognize, but they experience nonetheless; causing emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress.
"Believing" is the 'means' of conditioning humans. When we 'believe' a thought-image is real, that "sets-off/triggers" our perceptual-reflex just as surely as the environment; or taking emetic triggers vomiting.

( If your satisfied with or like being subservient 'puppet' of your conditioning, ignore what i write.)
Do you believe you were conditioned by others via indoctrination? Those that say 'yes'; how do others "make you believe" (against your will, I can't 'make' others believe what i write here; lol)
We were first 'conditioned' to believe, then that made us vulnerable to being 'duped'; what a 'ploy' perpetratred on us, making us like sheep?

"Indoctrination" does not occur by infusion but by accepting/believing.
 
Mar 2010
2,346
0
PA, USA
[quote author=sakoz link=topic=2867.msg20816#msg20816 date=1342460624]
.....Can We Reclaim "Believing" Back Into Voluntary Domain ?.....
If not, then we must interact with 'subliminal believing' the way physicists interact with invisible submicroscopic atomic level.
How/why was 'believing' conditioned/automated to function by habit? We relinquish control of 'believing' by habituating it. 'Conditioning' analogous to involuntary reflexes/instincts.[/quote]
How is one able to tell if one others' belief is sustained by habit or voluntary introspection? (This question is a call for a few sticks or tresses for the "bridge".) For that matter, can not all belief be said to be a form of preference/prejudice, the both of which are the hallmarks of Ego? Belief can then be likened to oxygen: necessary for the thinking process, but with no specific instance of it to be treasured or enamored.

There's pupil contraction, knee jerk, swallowing, vomiting, hiccups, sneezing, crying, laughing. Which crucial one not on this list? "Perceptual Reflex". "All creatures are involuntarily reactive to perceptions", (for survival/adaptaion, etc.)
Certain sets of stimuli bring about certain responses. The vagaries of these vary from person to person, but the basic statement acts its part as a general rule. This being but another way of repeating sakoz's statement.

There's another version of 'perceptual reflex' most people do not yet recognize, but they experience nonetheless; causing emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress.
"Believing" is the 'means' of conditioning humans. When we 'believe' a thought-image is real, that "sets-off/triggers" our perceptual-reflex just as surely as the environment; or taking emetic triggers vomiting.
In the Vedantic philosophies, this is known as Maya. Maya does not mean that the world is illusion; that is what most assume that the term means. No, the term Maya rather refers to the "perceptual reflex" that most "experience nonetheless." One can get into physics, but that is only the object of Maya. The subject is that one treats it as a real phenomenon that harbors real weight. From that does the 'habitual belief' spring. (This is an abridged description of this concept, abridged for abridging its abridgment; abridged.)

( If your satisfied with or like being subservient 'puppet' of your conditioning, ignore what i write.)
Do you believe you were conditioned by others via indoctrination? Those that say 'yes'; how do others "make you believe" (against your will, I can't 'make' others believe what i write here; lol)
We were first 'conditioned' to believe, then that made us vulnerable to being 'duped'; what a 'ploy' perpetratred on us, making us like sheep?
Humans are born into a transient life, with an Ego whose natural tendency is to fear its own end. How messed up is that?

"Indoctrination" does not occur by infusion but by accepting/believing.
Agreed. No indoctrination can occur that is not allowed by the will. It had to be accepted. If not, then how did it get in there (the mind)?

Good post sakoz.
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
pert-5: Thanks: I "tap" into innate wisdom and after I write, I too read it; this time you did the 'break-down' for all of us.
I been 'trying' for over a year 'trying' to get readers to "tap into and utilize' what's already in them also.

Post Script: pert-5 , you write about building a bridge, my point is that what ever is 'across the bridge' already communicates with us, if were 'open' and 'trust', that's were 'insights' come from, etc.

2nd P.S. After rereading what you wrote, You see 'beyond' what I wrote. Finally one reader understands what I write. I hope the others understand you, :)

I 'like' your reply, I don't want to "pick" at it, but let's look at; "Humans are born into a transient life, WITH AN EGO whose natural tendency is to fear its own end." We are not born with a ego, saying that 'reinforces' the belief that it's real, no wonder it fears its own end. First we learn a language, then 'construct' a ego/identity; when we see its origin, there's no need to fear its dissolution or demise, ( it lasts as long as the body is alive). The mistaken belief that ego is alive/real is a prime belief to be "squelched"; results in 'freedom from the tyranny of ego'.
( Wow I'm impressed what innate wisdom is communicating to me; I 'implore' all readers to try it and see what 'ideas' you get from 'there'.)
 
Mar 2010
2,346
0
PA, USA
[quote author=sakoz link=topic=2867.msg20818#msg20818 date=1342480534]
I 'like' your reply, I don't want to "pick" at it, but let's look at; "Humans are born into a transient life, WITH AN EGO whose natural tendency is to fear its own end." We are not born with a ego, saying that 'reinforces' the belief that it's real, no wonder it fears its own end. First we learn a language, then 'construct' a ego/identity; when we see its origin, there's no need to fear its dissolution or demise, ( it lasts as long as the body is alive). The mistaken belief that ego is alive/real is a prime belief to be "squelched"; results in 'freedom from the tyranny of ego'.
( Wow I'm impressed what innate wisdom is communicating to me; I 'implore' all readers to try it and see what 'ideas' you get from 'there'.)[/quote]
No problem sakoz. That statement definitely was not to imply that humans are born with an Ego, but skipping the whole 'formulation of the Ego' process in the sentence does cloud the issue. So you are most correct in doling out commentary. Thank you.
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
pert-5: I know you don't mean "literally a bridge"; but simply as analogy; but our involuntaty 'takes' 'believed thought images' literally. And most people do not recognize that fact and go on thinking/believing "nonchalantly" as if there are no consequences to doing so, and don't recognize the correlation between what they believe and experience -stress, hypertension and other symptoms; because they mistakenly believe as if only "sensory input perceptions" are stimuli, they overlook the stimuli they themselves are 'producing'. Such thinking goes unabated; they take pills instead of addressing the cause, (their own believed thoughts). Pharmaceutical companies 'love' it. I'm tempted to buy,stock in those companies, they are 'a sure thing' as long as people don't recognize their "thinking habits". I hope they bribe me to stop writing this topic, it can't be good for business, but I assure them, not to worry; very few take this topic 'seriously'.
 
Mar 2010
2,346
0
PA, USA
I somehow get the feeling that Enigma could say something about our posts that would really hurt our feelings sakoz. Hmm. ;)
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
pert-5; No he cannot. You wrote; 'No indoctrination can occur that is not allowed by the will. It had to be accepted. If not, then how did it get in there (the mind).' He has to use words, his words would evoke our own images; I don't believe my images are real, but Maya, hence I would not react to my own images evoked by his words.
( Surely your not serious about anyone "hurting our feelings"? Only if we allow it.) :D :D : ( If anyone can "hurt" our feelings would nullify what we advocate.)
 
Mar 2010
2,346
0
PA, USA
[quote author=sakoz link=topic=2867.msg20830#msg20830 date=1342553446]
pert-5; No he cannot. You wrote; 'No indoctrination can occur that is not allowed by the will. It had to be accepted. If not, then how did it get in there (the mind).' He has to use words, his words would evoke our own images; I don't believe my images are real, but Maya, hence I would not react to my own images evoked by his words.
( Surely your not serious about anyone "hurting our feelings"? Only if we allow it.) :D :D : ( If anyone can "hurt" our feelings would nullify what we advocate.)[/quote]
You're not one for humor, are you? Enigma is hip, and a forerunner to vanguard psychology, so he is a respectable speaker. I really, really dig what he has to say. He probably won't even write a response in this thread, and this thread is only made more awesome by the potential that he possibly could.

sakoz, lol, what feelings are there to be hurt? Imagine a giant midget running around trying to hurt 'feelings'. It would make a superb 20-sec cartoon.
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
"what feelings are there to hurt?" our amydala is our 'early warning system'; it's 'hard wired' to flight or fight, (that involves emotions).
We can't 'dismantle'; what we 'can' do is not "set it off' with false alarms, that is believing false thoughts. "False alarms" are rampant because most people don't recognize what their doing to 'set it off/trigger' 'false alarms.'